The Hidden Cost of Ignoring Intent-Based Trading Architectures

Traditional AMMs and order books expose user transactions, creating a predictable revenue stream for searchers. This is a direct, unavoidable tax on every swap.\n- $1B+ in MEV extracted annually from DEXs\n- ~50-200 bps of slippage lost per trade\n- Creates toxic order flow that degrades liquidity

Intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap let users specify a desired outcome (e.g., 'I want 1 ETH, pay max 2000 USDC'). Solvers compete privately to fulfill it.\n- Shifts risk from user to solver\n- Aggregates liquidity across all venues\n- Enables gasless, cross-chain swaps via fillers like Across

Value accrual moves from the execution layer (L1/L2 gas, validator fees) to the coordination layer (solver networks, intent mempools). This is the Anoma and SUAVE thesis.\n- New stack: Intent-centric rollups, solver auctions, shared sequencers\n- New business model: Fees for fulfillment, not for block space\n- Endgame: Autonomous agents trading directly via intents

Every vanilla swap on Uniswap or Aave is a signal for searchers to extract value. Users pay for their own exploitation.

• ~$1.5B+ extracted from users in 2023 alone.
• Latent cost embedded in every trade via worse execution.
• Creates adversarial relationship between user and network.

UniswapX doesn't execute trades; it broadcasts intents. A network of fillers competes to deliver the best outcome, internalizing MEV.

• Gasless signing: User signs 'I want X for Y', not a transaction.
• Filler competition drives execution towards theoretical optimal price.
• Aggregates liquidity across all AMMs and private pools.

A dedicated intent-centric blockchain to become the mempool and order flow auction for all of Ethereum. It's the neutral substrate for the intent economy.

• Decentralized block building separates consensus from execution.
• Encrypted mempool protects intent privacy from frontrunning.
• Cross-domain: Aims to unify intent flow across rollups and L1.

Intent systems shift trust from validators to solvers (e.g., fillers in UniswapX, solvers in CowSwap). This creates new centralization vectors.

• Solver cartels could collude on pricing.
• Requires robust economic slashing and reputation systems.
• Protocols like Across use a bonded solver model to mitigate.

Anoma envisions a world where all user interactions are declarative intents, enabling multi-party, multi-asset coordination in a single step.

• Multi-chain atomic settlement without bridging middleware.
• Privacy-native intent matching via zero-knowledge proofs.
• Moves beyond simple swaps to complex DeFi legos.

Intent-based design isn't a feature; it's the next architectural layer. Protocols that treat user transactions as commands will be outcompeted by those that treat them as desired outcomes.

• User experience becomes the primary competitive moat.
• Efficiency gains are systemic, not incremental.
• Lays foundation for mainstream adoption through abstraction.

Traditional transaction-based systems leak value to searchers and validators. This is a direct tax on your users and your protocol's economic activity.\n- Front-running and sandwich attacks extract ~$1B+ annually from users.\n- Failed transactions waste user funds and degrade UX, with failure rates often >10% on congested chains.

Intent architectures (like UniswapX and CowSwap) let users specify what they want, not how to do it. Solvers compete to fulfill the intent optimally.\n- Better Prices: Solver competition drives execution to the best available liquidity source.\n- Guaranteed Execution: Users get their outcome or pay nothing, eliminating gas waste on failed transactions.

Intent-based systems separate the declaration from the execution, creating a modular stack. This enables cross-chain intents and shared liquidity pools.\n- Cross-Chain Native: Protocols like Across and LayerZero use intents for seamless bridging.\n- Liquidity Aggregation: Solvers tap into all DEXs and private pools, providing best-in-class fill rates.

If your DApp doesn't adopt an intent-centric flow, you become a backend liquidity source for intent aggregators. They own the user relationship and capture the fees.\n- Commoditization Risk: Your protocol becomes a dumb liquidity pool with thinner margins.\n- Innovation Lag: You cannot offer advanced features like batched settlements or privacy that intent solvers enable.

For most protocols, building a full solver network is premature. The strategic move is to integrate with existing intent infrastructure.\n- Integrate Solvers: Make your liquidity easily accessible to networks like UniswapX and CowSwap.\n- Use Shared Standards: Adopt frameworks like Anoma's intent-centric architecture or ERC-4337 for account abstraction to future-proof.

The endpoint is clear: transactions will be a low-level primitive, like assembly code. All user-facing interactions will be intent-based.\n- Wallet-Level Integration: Wallets will natively express intents, making today's transaction signing obsolete.\n- Protocols as Solvers: The most advanced protocols (e.g., dYdX) will run their own solver nodes to capture value and control execution.